families in global perspective - pearson canada · families in global perspective. 3 ... number of...

Jaipaul L. RoopnarineUwe P. Gielen

Allyn & Bacon75 Arlington St., Suite 300

Boston, MA 02116www.ablongman.com

0-205-33574-8(Please use above number to order your exam copy.)

© 2005

s a m p l e c h a p t e rThe pages of this Sample Chapter may have

slight variations in final published form.

Visit www.ablongman.com/replocator to contact your local Allyn & Bacon/Longman representative.

FAMILIES IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

3

CHAPTER 1

With an eye toward universalistic concerns about thehuman rights and welfare of children and families(see United Nations Development Program, 2001;United Nations General Assembly, 1989), today sci-entific discourses and investigations of familiesworldwide have become more focused on the cul-tural underpinnings of human behavior in generaland interpersonal relationships more specifically, thechanging ecology of childhood and family relation-ships, schooling, the reproductive health of youngpeople, transnational or hybrid identities, and otherpressing issues that affect the pulse of family life(Arnett, 2002; Comunian & Gielen, 2001; Gielen &

Comunian, 1998, 1999; Shweder et al., 1998; Super& Harkness, 1997). Witness, for example, the re-search emphasis on convergences and divergences inadolescent experiences and development in differentregions of the world (Booth, 2002; Brown, Larson,& Saraswathi, 2002), father–child relationships in di-verse ethnic and cultural groups (Lamb, in press),cultural and cross-cultural views on childrearing andchildhood socialization (Chao, 1994; Gielen &Roopnarine, in press; Shweder et al., 1998; Super &Harkness, 1997), within- and between-region popu-lation movements and acculturation and transna-tional identities (Adler & Gielen, 2003; Tomlinson,

FAMILIES IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEAN INTRODUCTION

JAIPAUL L. ROOPNARINE UWE P. GIELENSyracuse University St. Fancis College

ch01.qxd 5/10/04 9:30 AM Page 3

1999), changes in family composition—fertility ratesand size, marital rates, age of entry into marriage,separation and divorce rates, life expectancies (Ar-nett, 2002), changes in life stage markers (e.g., en-trance into adulthood, marriage), cultural practicesand traditions including religious prescriptions andfamily law (Nsamenang, 2002), and conceptualframeworks defining biological and social parent-hood (Coley, 2001; Roopnarine, in press).

Despite these laudable attempts and the factthat modern understanding of different dimensionsof family relationships has profited tremendouslyfrom scholarly inquiries in such diverse disciplinesas anthropology, psychology, child development andfamily studies, history, sociology, demography, eco-nomics, medicine, social work, education, and fam-ily therapy, there is still much speculation aboutfamilies in diverse cultural groups. And seamlessexplanations of universalistic patterns of behaviorsare often grounded in thin databases (e.g.,Caribbean, Latin America, the Muslim world ingeneral). The latter has contributed, in part, to mis-guided or controversial academic treatment of andsometimes-harsh criticisms by different policy andpolitical groups about the merit of different familystructural arrangements (see Sigle-Rushton &Mclanahan, 2002, for a discussion) and culturalchildrearing scripts (e.g., harsh discipline) forhealthy childhood outcomes (Baumrind, Larzlere,& Cowan, 2002). As the twentieth century flowsinto the twenty-first, we remain bewildered by somevery basic questions about families and their cul-tural scripts about specific roles: What constitutes afamily in different cultures? How are paternal andmaternal roles and responsibilities defined and ex-hibited in different cultures? How do socioculturaland religious belief systems or ethnotheories influ-ence family organization patterns and the structur-ing of social and cognitive experiences for children?Do families across societies have common goals andexpectations for childhood? Are developmentalmilestones and periods of transition from one lifestage to the next expanding or compressing? Howare families and children affected by increasingglobalization?

Noting the ubiquity of globalization, factors thatimpel structural and processural changes in families(e.g., economic activities, migration, delayed mar-riage and cohabitation, increased schooling and edu-cational attainment of women and children,maintaining traditional values), and the challengesfamilies face in order to maintain key aspects offairly established cultural traditions and practices asthey become increasingly immersed in global con-sciousness (Arnett, 2002), this volume presents arepresentative sample of family systems that cur-rently exist and the social-psychological, cultural, re-ligious, economic, and demographic forces thatgovern their very organizational patterns and variedfunctions in diverse cultures around the world. Anincreasingly prominent view is that a better under-standing of family social and structural organizationpatterns, division of household and childrearingfunctions, and family socialization practices can onlybe achieved through empirical knowledge guided bymultiple conceptual and theoretical frameworks andresearch methodologies established in wide-rangingdisciplines. This volume capitalizes on the multidis-ciplinary approach—which we believe is at the heartof defining the very nature of families, and cata-loging, describing, and interpreting how familiescarry out their diverse roles in everyday settings. Assuch, we draw on the work of distinguished anthro-pologists, evolutionary biologists, psychologists,child development experts, education experts, fam-ily sociologists, cultural psychologists, and familytherapists who have conducted basic research onfamilies in different parts of the world. This volumeincludes a treatment of families in preindustrial cul-tures (e.g., Bofi farmers and foragers in the CentralAfrican Republic), families in societies that have ex-perienced extreme transformations either in eco-nomic and/or political ideology within the last fifteenyears (e.g., Russia, South Africa, China, Brazil, Mi-cronesia), families in developing societies that areseemingly perpetually immersed in economic, polit-ical, and social adversities (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia,Caribbean), and families in postindustrial societies(e.g., Japan, Germany, Italy, Norway, the UnitedStates,). There are several threads that weave the cur-

4 PART ONE INTRODUCTION

ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 4

rent volume together: a multidisciplinary approachthat taps into both qualitative (e.g., participant ob-servation, narrative) and quantitative research infor-mation, demographic and sociohistorical accounts offamilies in the various cultures, basic religious andcultural beliefs, family structural arrangements andthe division of household labor, socialization prac-tices and their implications for childhood develop-ment, and family policies. Against this backdrop, thegoal is to provide a pan-cultural understanding offamily relationships without making blanket injunc-tions about their internal dynamics or functioning.

In organizing this volume, it seemed appropriateto consider up front two major and sometimes con-trasting perspectives on the family—evolutionaryand post(modern). After all, we need to know howfamilial roles—husband–wife/partner, childrearing,and so on—evolved over time and whether there arepatterns to variations across human societies. Hav-ing said that, a somewhat futuristic view of the fam-ily might encourage us to confront the complexitiesembedded in viewing “families” in all of their variedforms in diverse cultural systems, and, as notedalready, the challenges and triumphs that families ex-perience in executing their daily roles in an ever-increasing global community. The next two chaptersaccomplish this goal by providing a general basis forcontextualizing the rest of the material presented inthe book—from societies in which traditional famil-ial roles are extremely differentiated to those inwhich the social organization and division of func-tions appear more egalitarian and where social andbiological parenthood are not isomorphic. More im-portant, Low’s chapter on families from an evolu-tionary anthropological perspective (Chapter 2)points to specific patterns in the diversity of familylife across a broad variety of societies, while Silver-stein and Auerbach’s chapter (Chapter 3) lays barefamily forms (e.g., lesbigay families; technologicalfamilies; visiting unions, common-law) that are onlynow garnering greater scientific attention. To be sure,Low argues that families across human societieshave some common elements—caregivers, offspring,and other individuals who are influenced by thesame ecological and evolutionary rules. Yet there is

great diversity in mating (e.g., monogamous andpolygynous) and marriage systems (socially ac-cepted spousal arrangements).

Before moving on to an examination of some ofthe major themes of this book, a few other generalremarks are necessary. It goes without saying that anintegration of data from related disciplines might addgreater explanatory power and subsequently depth tothe sociocultural meanings of adaptive and mal-adaptive familial practices and their developmentalimplications for individual family members (Arnett,2002; Comunian & Gielen, 2001; Gielen & Comun-ian, 1998, 1999; Tamis-LeMonda & Cabrera, 2002).Previous excursions into family life across cultures,whether anthropological or sociological (e.g., Nauck& Schoenpflug, 1997), have remained fragmentary.The same can be said for psychological studies offamilies in different cultural settings, which haveoften approached cultural diversity in family func-tioning and belief systems from the point of view offamily therapy (e.g., Gielen & Comunian, 1998,1999; McGoldrick, Giardano, & Pearce, 1996). Anumber of multicultural works on family life haveexplored “ethnic” families in the United States (e.g.,Mindel, Habenstein, & Wright, 1999; Taylor, 1998),but have not aspired to a more global perspective.

Needless to say, attempts to present disparatesources of knowledge on families in different cul-tural contexts from different academic disciplinescan serve to unify our understanding of domain- andbehavior-specific symmetries and asymmetries infamily life both within and across cultures.

True to the mission of providing an overview offamilies around the world through different acade-mic lenses, chapter authors have utilized research in-formation situated in theoretical frameworks and thequalitative methodologies of anthropology (e.g.,Fouts, Martini, Rebhun, Seltzer) and the logical-positivist tradition more akin to psychology (e.g.,Chen; Keller, Zack, & Abels; Georgas, Bafiti, Pa-pademou, & Mylonas), and sociology (e.g., Fogiel-Bijaoui; Miller, Leavitt, Merrill, & Park) but withcomparably rich and diverse theoretical perspectiveson parenting and childhood socialization practicesrooted in perspectives articulated in cultural and

CHAPTER 1 FAMILIES IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: AN INTRODUCTION 5

ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 5

cross-cultural psychology (Chao, 1994; Greenfield,1997; LeVine, in press; Shweder et al., 1998; Super& Harkness, 1997). Their varied nature aside, alltold, the overall objectives of these chapters are thesame: to describe the structural dynamics and inti-mate transactions of families in cultural contexts,their developmental trajectories, and the forces thatpossibly drive them. It is now appropriate to turn tosome core concepts explored in this book.

SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN FAMILIES

By the end of the twentieth century, several societieshad undergone key changes in the structuralarrangements and organization of families over priordecades (e.g., the rise in single-parent families inpostindustrialized societies; declines in marriagerates; an increase in percentage of nuclear familiesbecause of drastically reduced fertility rates). De-pending on the culture, family size and householdcomposition have been affected by governmentalpolicies (e.g., the one-child policy in China), move-ment of young people from rural to urban areas insearch of better economic conditions, increasing ed-ucational and economic opportunities for women,changing gender roles, attitudes toward childbear-ing and childrearing, challenges to the traditionalConfucian notion of filial piety, aging, postpone-ment of marriage, decrease in arranged marriages,increase in divorce rates in developing societies,sustained schooling (e.g., compulsory education),movement toward or away from orthodox religiousvalues (e.g., in Muslim countries), and global con-sciousness (Arnett, 2002; Booth, 2002; Friedman,2000). Moreover, families are not static entities; asKeller et al. (this volume) point out, “families arecomposed, decomposed, and recomposed againwith new members,” with the traditional familyserving as a life-phase transition to other familyarrangements. Frequently, transformations in fam-ily structure do precipitate changes in familial, in-stitutional, and community practices. These changesand the accompanying functional dynamics thatthey set in motion are complex and manifest them-selves differently over the life span of the family.

Consider, for example, the delayed timing of transi-tions to particular familial roles (e.g., parenthood,marriage) (Arnett, 2002) and the impact of genderratios on out-of-marriage births around the world(Barbour, 2000). Almost all of the chapters in thisvolume provide a sociohistorical basis for under-standing contemporary changes in family structuresand organizational patterns. It is difficult to imag-ine that placing families in “traditional” and (post)modern” categories or in terms of structural arrange-ments without factoring in emotional closeness or“jointness,” will suffice in capturing the “patchworkof family forms” and the metamorphoses (e.g., pos-sible “degendering”) occurring within them in thetwenty-first century.

Not surprisingly, what emerges from the discus-sions of families that follow is that in different regionsof the world family structures and organizational pat-terns fall along a continuum: though changing slightly,some remain rigidly planted in “traditional,” patriar-chal mores and religious edicts with heterosexual mar-riages as the cornerstone to family life (e.g., Egypt,Turkey), while in most developed societies (e.g., theUnited States, Israel, Italy, Japan, Germany, Norway)there is an admixture of family forms (e.g., single-parent, cohabiting, reconstituted, nonresidential-fatherhouseholds, extended households, lesbigay, etc.—seealso Gore & Gore [2002]), with high or at least in-creasing divorce rates the norm and high out-of-wedlock births (50 percent in Oslo, Norway, in 2001;33 percent of all births in the United States in 1999were to unmarried women; 27 percent in Russia).These developed societies have given rise to the “tra-ditional modern nuclear family”—suggesting that het-erosexual couples struggle to redefine familial rolesin the context of “the new fatherhood,” “the dual-earner or co-breadwinner family,” and the “mommytrack” (nuclear families range from 33 percent in Ger-many to 43 percent in Belgium and France). Simulta-neously, these families are faced with the legal, social,and moral legitimacy of “nontraditional” familyarrangements that have become more acceptable overtime. (To counteract these developments, the UnitedStates currently has recently proposed a promotion ofheterosexual marriage policy).


ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 6

Broadly speaking, in most societies considered,there appears to be some form of family “extended-ness.” Families may engage in functional extended-ness, living nearby and offering mutual support andaid to cognate (Tulananda & Roopnarine, 2001). Insome developed societies, such as Greece, extendedfamilies flourish, and they constitute significantnumbers in others (e.g., in Japan and Italy). InTurkey, extendedness may mark a “transitionalphase” after the son’s marriage, and in Indonesia, itis given more importance than the nuclear family orindividual members. Multigenerational units are alsocommon in a number of developing countries (e.g.,China, India), Polynesian Island cultures (e.g., Mar-quesas), preindustrial societies, and in those in whichthere is quite a bit of mate-shifting (Caribbean),where men and women bear children from several“baby mothers” and “baby fathers” and “shift” chil-dren to be raised by collateral kin (e.g., neighbors inthe yard or compound) or affinal relatives. As willbe deduced, the role of extended members may in-clude such diverse and highly significant functionsas “childminders/caregivers” or doting grandparents(e.g., China) to providing economic assistance andshelter for children whose parents migrate to the de-veloped world to seek better economic opportunitiesand permanent residency (e.g., Caribbean parents).

The existence of multiple family forms calls intoquestion notions of monogamy, two-parent hetero-sexual unions, and marriage as primordial to familyformation. Regardless of family arrangements, theability to execute different familial roles in these di-verse cultural systems amidst political, social, andeconomic transitions globally will determine the sta-bility of each society and their ability to raise chil-dren who are more likely than not to develop multiplecultural identities (Arnett, 2002). There is a good betthat attaining these endeavors will in large measurerest on the quality of parenting skills and human cap-ital, adequate support for childrearing, and other fam-ily processes and sociodemographic variables ratherthan family structure or composition per se.

Nevertheless, sociodemographic changes af-fecting family life have occurred on a worldwidebasis during recent decades. Average life expectan-

cies for both women and men have increasedsteadily in all societies not affected by war, revolu-tionary political changes, and/or high rates of HIVinfection. This phenomenon has contributed to asteady “aging process,” especially in the industrial-ized countries (e.g., Germany, Italy, Norway, Japan).Furthermore, women’s fertility rates have been de-clining on a worldwide basis and to such an extentthat in almost all industrialized countries they havenow reached a level far below the “population re-placement level.” All of these demographic changeshave drastic implications for the structure and func-tioning of families: Families begin to shrivel in size,extended families become the exception, mothersleave home in order to work, young people defermarriage or do not get married at all, and middle-aged adults (especially women) are asked to takecare of their vulnerable aging parents. These andmany other phenomena are intertwined with addi-tional changes brought about by industrialization, theinformation revolution, the ensuing rise in educationlevels, increased consumerism, a more individualis-tic outlook on life, redefined gender roles, and thesimple fact that having children is now becoming avery expensive proposition for prospective parents.Increasingly, children lose their utilitarian value tothe family, a value that had been obvious to every-body in former centuries. Furthermore, many ofthese demographic and cultural changes are now be-coming increasingly visible among the middleclasses in the more successful developing countriessuch as Turkey, Mexico, and even India.

HUSBAND–WIFE ROLES AND HOUSEHOLD AND CHILDCARE WORK

Perhaps one domain in which families appear moreresistant to change is in their assumption of house-hold and childcare roles. It is fair to say that, whetherit is in the postindustrialized, developing, or prein-dustrial societies, in heterosexual marital and non-marital unions, women bear the brunt of childcareand household labor—engaging in the “second shift”if you will (Hochschild, 1989), and their participa-tion in these activities is not appreciably different in


ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 7

single- or dual-earner families (see Wilkie, Ferree,& Ratclif, 1998, for an exception in the UnitedStates). Likewise, in a majority of societies consid-ered in this volume, beliefs about familial roles arestill largely aligned and anchored in patriarchal val-ues, to the point where roles have been characterizedas “duofocal” in Turkey or are defined by paradoxi-cal cultural codes such as familism, where men stillhave the upper hand in the family (e.g., Israel). Onemay reasonably ask then: How convincing are theclaims about the “new and emerging fatherhood”(Lamb, 2004; Tamis-LeMonda & Cabrera, 2002),and shifts toward more egalitarian roles betweenhusbands and wives or mating partners? And whatabout the tenets of modernization theory proposingthat with increasing industrialization and economicprosperity, people should reject and shed traditionalvalues and move in lockstep toward modern valuesand individualism? What roles do religion and cul-tural beliefs play in the maintenance of so-called tra-ditional values?

Though not consistent across societies, there issome indication that authoritarian family values areon the decline or that families are torn between tra-ditional (e.g., ie in Japan; familism in Israel tied toRabbinical Court Law-1953 and Druze ReligiousCourts Law-1962) and modern democratic struc-tures. While customary marriage remains a majorprerequisite to family formation and procreation andmen are depicted as the head of the family in mostsocieties, there is an increase in premarital sex andearly entry into sexual activities, a decrease inarranged marriages and emphasis on bridewealth(ilobolo; dowry, mehr or mihir) and movement to-ward romantic or love marriages (e.g., Turkey,Japan), a partial replacement of polygamy by con-cubinage in a few societies (e.g., South Africa), a risein the number of women in the labor force through-out the world which has led to greater expectationsof more role sharing by men/fathers, the implemen-tation of maternity and paternity leave policies, anda decline in paternal authority due to father absenceand the questioning of traditional parental authorityby children. All of this is compounded by the factthat “modern” parents are less desirous of hierarchi-

cal relationships between spouses/partners and withchildren. However, the latter may not be so for mul-tiethnic, stratified societies (e.g., Israel), where asymbiosis is thought to exist between religion and“state” (Fogiel-Bijaoui, this volume), rural, agricul-tural families with less educational attainment, andfor families who are wed to religious and other ide-ological beliefs (e.g., Egyptians, Indians) thatstrongly endorse the superiority of men through reli-gious edicts and religious laws (e.g., religious courtsin Indonesia). Even here there is a lack of uniformity.The Minangkabau, a Muslim group in West Suma-tra, do not subscribe to a patriarchal system—undoubtedly a rare exception. The point is that thereis a feeling that overall familial practices are becom-ing less rigidly organized along conservative gender-differentiated lines and in developing societies aswomen utilize diverse strategies to establish psycho-logical power and to ease the grip of male control onthem, while in some (e.g., Japan and perhaps in otherConfucian-origin cultures), mothers lavish more at-tention on children when they perceive emotionaldistance from their husbands—resulting in whatsome psychologists term “emotional matriarchy”(Naito & Gielen, this volume). Arguably, the eco-nomic, educational, and sociopolitical gains made bywomen around the world have had some impact onthe assumption of household work by men. How-ever, as can be gleaned from the different chapters,men in most cultural settings have changed mini-mally in this regard and tend to hold on to “tradi-tional internal working models” about gender roles.So far, men’s participation in childcare in countriesthat have liberal paternal leave policies (e.g., manyEuropean societies, Japan) has been somewhat dis-appointing, and in developing societies, migration tofind employment (Egyptians to oil fields in the Mid-dle East, Caribbean men as fruit pickers in theUnited States, rural fathers to the cities and towns ofIndia [Gielen, 1993]) means that husbands are awayfrom family members for extended periods of time.This phenomenon (“wage-father”) is likely to multi-ply in the global workplace and in all likelihood willfurther alienate men from their families, place morechildcare and household responsibilities on women’s


ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 8

shoulders, and encourage grandparents to take careof their grandchildren.

PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS—SOCIALIZATION BELIEFS, GOALS, AND PRACTICES

It has been proposed that families may have similarexpectations of children across the world: to developthe instrumental competencies and skills necessaryto successfully navigate and meet the requirementsof life within a given culture and to ensure the re-productive success of offspring. There are generalagreements that, across societies, in some behavioraland cognitive domains parents share common goalswhen it comes to the socialization of children (e.g.,health and survival of offspring, language compe-tence, reproductive success of offspring, etc.). Butresearch evidence also indicates that parents havedifferent belief systems about what is important forraising competent children (Super & Harkness,1997; Sigel & MiGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002), variedexpectations about how children should behave, thepsychological and institutional value of children tothe family at different stages of development, diversefamily rituals and initiations (e.g., bar mitzvah in Is-rael; co-sleeping in India; Zulu ritual of seclusionamong boys; Pedi and Tsonga seclusion of girls),and they voluntarily or involuntarily prioritize so-cialization goals (e.g., nutritional, safety versus earlychildhood education and stimulation; social versustechnological skills) in concert with the demands ofthe physical environment, and the efficient employ-ment of time-tested cultural scripts that parents andother adult members have come to embrace in theprocess of childrearing (LeVine, 1974, in press;Shweder et al., 1998; Martini, this volume).

This book builds on the decades of cultural andcross-cultural research on childhood socializationconducted by others (see Shweder et al., 1998; Berry,Dasen, & Saraswathi, 1997; Super & Harkness, 1997;Whiting & Whiting, 1963, to name a few), by return-ing to some rudimentary questions about how chil-drearing and child training goals, beliefs, andpractices are instituted and carried out and potential

changes that are occurring in family socialization ascultural groups increasingly come face to face withone another—a practice that at once brings our simi-larities to the surface but magnifies differences aswell. An important difference between the currentvolume and those that have appeared before is thatwe have included a number of cultures that have beenrelatively ignored in the family literature (e.g., Brazil,Caribbean, Egypt, Indonesia, South Africa). Fromwhat has been said so far, these chapters should assistin charting, within the wide parameters of childrear-ing, the areas in which cultures around the worldshare common socialization beliefs, goals, and prac-tices and those in which they diverge.

We hope you keep in mind the remarkable trans-formations that are taking place in family life acrossthe globe (e.g., delocalization, marginalization, mi-gratory patterns, economic modes of production;challenges to paternal power and cultural traditions,etc.) (Adler & Gielen, 2003; Arnett, 2002; Gielen &Roopnarine, in press; Tomlinson, 1999) that arebound to affect the very notion of how we view coreconcepts of childrearing in diverse societies. In thisvein, it would be prudent to accept the possibilitythat childhood socialization goals, practices, and be-liefs may not be identical in single-parent, extendedand multigenerational households, biological two-parent households, co-habitant or same-sex familyarrangements within, much less across societies. Onthe other hand, there are societies that appear asmore “individualistic” (e.g., West European soci-eties, the United States) than “collectivistic” (e.g.,China, Japan) in their orientation (see Greenfield &Cocking, 1994), as valuing indulgence—especiallythose with prolonged infancy periods (e.g., India), asemphasizing obedience training and other conserva-tive childrearing strategies such as strict discipline(see Value of Children [VOC] study; Kagitçibasi,1996), share similarities with others in the expecta-tion that children will care for their aging parents(e.g., Japan, Caribbean, Turkey), engagement in sib-ling care, and in their emphasis on interpersonal re-lationships within the family.

Before presenting a brief synopsis of similari-ties and differences in socialization patterns across


ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 9

cultures, it behooves us to indicate that in a numberof societies that continue to experience ongoingshifts toward political and social freedoms (e.g.,Russia, South Africa) and in those that face constanteconomic woes (e.g. Caribbean, Indonesia, Brazil),emphasis appears to be on ad-hoc childrearingstrategies that are geared toward assisting childrento develop coping mechanisms to deal with lifeamidst unpredictable social and economic condi-tions (e.g., street children in Brazil, Indonesia).Among Russians, Germans who lived in the formerEast Germany, and non-White South Africans, thereis a dramatic shift away from “state” regulation offamily life. In Israel, a multiethnic society, “reli-gious law serves as a ‘national asset’,” but collideswith the individualism inherent in capitalist devel-opment (Fogiel-Bijaoui, this volume). The uncer-tainty about the stability of family practices,however, may not be limited to these societies. Fromher clinical work, Seltzer opined that troublingsocial-psychological problems exist among youngchildren in Norway due to multiple transientparental relationships and ambiguity surroundingthe family nomenclature (Whom do I belong to?Who are my family members?)—problems that areseen in other European and some developing soci-eties (e.g., Caribbean). In Japan, gaps have beenidentified between the lifestyles of parents and chil-dren (Naito & Gielen, this volume), and in SouthAfrica, the Caribbean, and Egypt, there are concernsabout the impact of prolonged father absence onchildhood development. At the same time, in someparts of the world children experience and live withdaily threats of violence (e.g., Israel).

Accepting the premise that parenting andparent–child relationships are constantly evolvingas adults confront the task of raising children in a(post)modern world, we undertake the risky busi-ness of identifying similarities in socializationprocesses across cultures that are strongly demar-cated along the lines of ideological and religious be-liefs. It has already been mentioned that familieshave common goals with respect to the survival andwell-being of their offspring. Beyond surface simi-larities, finding an adequate method of analyzing

commonalities in the range of socialization practicesacross cultures is much more difficult. A primaryconcern is with assumptions of cultural equivalencein origin(s) and meanings of behaviors and prac-tices. This not withstanding, like other familyprocesses outlined above, childrearing tendenciesrange from more autocratic methods of control andpower assertion to relaxed reciprocity across cul-tures and families. Noteworthy is the appearancethat Western industrialized societies lean toward theoverarching belief in autonomy or independencetraining early in the child’s life, instituting more“child-centered” approaches to childrearing that areembedded in “individualism.” These societies haveincreasing numbers of immigrants (e.g., Germany,Italy) from other parts of the world, and in some(e.g., Israel, the United States) that have diversepopulations, it has been demonstrated that parent-ing styles are hardly authoritative and expectationsof children may resemble those that have been ob-served in the natal cultures (see Roopnarine et al.,this volume). For instance, English-speaking immi-grants in the United States maintain their beliefs inharsher forms of discipline, and Chinese immigrantparents in the Los Angeles area exercise more con-trol in governing (guan) their children’s lives thanEuropean Americans (Chao, 1994). Diversity in par-enting styles and practices is perhaps also present inEuropean countries that have accepted migratoryworkers and increasing numbers of immigrants fromdifferent parts of the world.

However, cultural common ground in parentingis evident in obedience training, loyalty, and unilat-eral respect for adults in quite a few societies (e.g.,Indonesia, Caribbean, Turkey, India, China), and sib-ling care is not atypical in a few of them. It is tempt-ing to say that these societies are more authoritarianin their childrearing techniques. This would consti-tute an egregious error, however. In cultures that aremore “collectivistic” in their orientation, variabilityhas been documented in the changing ecology of par-enting (e.g., China, India, Japan). Thus, not unlikeEuropean and North American countries, parentingand parent–child relationships represent diversestrategies and practices in “collectivistic” societies—


ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 10

which are becoming more child-centered than parent-centered as couples/partners reassess notions of love,companionship, marital norms, the value of children,and the meaning of childhood, and as children ques-tion and resist more autocratic methods of parentalcontrol. Nevertheless, some societies are steadfastlywed to archaic beliefs about the “child’s place” in thefamily and society.

To summarize, childrearing/child training in dif-ferent societies reflects diverse practices, goals, andexpectations that are in the process of changing evenin those societies that have clung to more authoritar-ian family organization patterns. Simply groupingsocieties as having a “collectivistic” or “individual-istic” orientation would not do justice in describingthe multiple childrearing practices that are in place ina given culture. Quite possibly, notions of depen-dence and independence training as well as otherchildrearing mechanisms are becoming blurred asfamilies in different corners of the world are bom-barded with images of parenting and childhood inother cultures. This does not mean that deep culturaldifferences do not exist in childrearing. To the con-trary! As you will encounter, not only do societiesplace different emphasis on what is important tofamily relationships, they have different develop-mental expectations and profiles of children and uti-lize different behavioral tendencies in attaining theskills and competencies they believe are importantfor survival in their culture and to varying degreesthe world community.

FAMILY AND POLICY ISSUES

Whether it is the adoption of the United Nations Billof Rights for Children or the Saryiah courts of In-donesia, societies around the world have imple-mented policies that affect the lives of families andchildren. Some have recently attended to domestic vi-olence and family violence issues (e.g., Caribbean),abolition of physical punishment (e.g., Norway), therights of Lesbigay families in the military (e.g.,“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the United States),the one-child policy in China, human dignity (South

Africa), prevention of child abuse and the protectionof vulnerable people in the family (e.g., Israel), andpaternal leave policies, to name a few. The generalgoal of these policies is to bring order and/or regu-late family life, offer protection to basic humanrights, and help to maintain dignity in the lives offamilies and children so that they can grow and livein productive and rewarding ways. In asking eachchapter author to include a piece on family policywhere appropriate, we intended to inform you, thereader, about the legal and political attempts beingmade around the world to address the needs of fam-ilies and children who live under diverse social, po-litical, religious, legal, and economic circumstances.

GENERAL SUMMARY

This book covers a diverse array of information onfamilies in different cultural systems around theworld. Recording caregiving patterns and strategiesfor socializing boys and girls, parent–child arrange-ments, allocation of resources, division of labor, andother aspects of family life embedded in differentmating and marriage systems across societies shouldincrease our acceptance, interpretation, and under-standing of broad definitions of family life today.The call to unravel the cultural underpinnings ofhuman behavior has taken on greater meaning in aglobally conscious world that, at the moment, is at-tempting to come to grips with differences in familybeliefs and practices, religious and linguistic differ-ences, enormous economic disparities between andwithin nations, and social and political oppression.At this point, it is probably impossible to know thetrue extent of the impact of speeded-up globaliza-tion on family relationships in different societies.Clearly, technological advances in communicationaugmented by increased interpersonal contact, andquestions posed at the individual, family, and soci-etal levels about longstanding family structures/roles, traditions, religious edicts, and family lawswill continue to influence changes in family func-tioning and childhood socialization in covert andovert ways worldwide.


ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 11


REFERENCES

Adler, L., & Gielen, U. (Eds.). (2003). Immigration, emi-gration, and migration in international perspective.Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization.American Psychologist, 57, 774–783.

Barbour, N. (2000). On the relationship between countrysex ratios and teen pregnancy rates: A replication.Cross-Cultural Research, 34, 26–37.

Baumrind, D., Larzlere, R. D., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Or-dinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Psycho-logical Bulletin, 128, 580–589.

Berry, J., Dasen, P., & Saraswathi, T. S. (Eds.). (1997).Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 2: Basicprocesses and human development. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Booth, M. (2002). Arab adolescents facing the future: En-during ideals and pressures for change. In. B. B.Brown, R. Larson, & T. S. Sarsawathi (Eds.), Theworld’s youth: Adolescence in eight regions of theglobe (pp. 207–242). New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Brown, B. B., Larson, R. & Sarsawathi, T. S. (Eds.).(2002). The world’s youth: Adolescence in eight re-gions of the globe. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarianparenting style: Understanding Chinese parentingthrough the cultural notion of training. Child Devel-opment, 72, 1832–1843.

Coley, R. (2001). (In)visible men: Emerging research onlow-income unmarried, and minority fathers. Ameri-can Psychologist, 56, 1–11.

Comunian, A., & Gielen, U. (Eds.). (2001). Internationalperspectives on human development. Lengerich, Ger-many: Pabst.

Friedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree: Un-derstanding globalization. New York: Anchor.

Gielen, U. P. (1993). Gender roles in traditional Tibetancultures. In L. L. Adler (Ed.), International hand-book on gender roles (pp. 413–437). Westport, CT:Greenwood.

Gielen, U. P., & Comunian, A. L. (Eds.). (1998). The fam-ily and family therapy in international perspective.Trieste, Italy: Lint.

Gielen, U. P., & Comunian, A. L. (Eds.). (1999). Interna-tional approaches to the family and family therapy.Padua, Italy: UNIPRESS.

Gielen, U. P., & Roopnarine, J. L. (Eds.). (in press) Child-hood and adolescence in Cross-cultural perspective.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Gore, A., & Gore, T. (2002). Joined at the heart: Thetransformation of the American family. New York:Henry Holt.

Greenfield, P. (1997). Culture as process: Empirical meth-ods for cultural psychology. In J. Berry, P. Dasen, &T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-culturalpsychology. Vol. 1: Theory and method (pp. 301–346). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Greenfield, P. M., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1994). Cross-cultural roots of minority child development. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York:Viking.

Kagitçibasi, Ç. (1996). Family and human developmentacross cultures: A view from the other side. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in childdevelopment (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

LeVine, R. (1974). Parental goals: A cross-cultural view.Teachers College Record, 76, 226–239.

LeVine, R. (in press). Challenging expert knowledge:Findings from an African study of infant care and de-velopment. In U. P. Gielen, & J. L. Roopnarine(Eds.), Childhood and adolescence in cross-culturalperspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

McGoldrick, M., Giardano, J., & Pearce, J. K. (Eds.).(1996). Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). NewYork: Guilford.

Mindel, C. H., Habenstein, R. W., & Wright, R., Jr. (Eds.).(1999). Ethnic families in America: Patterns andvariations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.

Nauck, B., & Schoenpflug, U. (Eds.). (1997). Familien inverschiedenen Kulturen [Families in different cul-tures]. Stuttgart, Germany: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.

Nsamenang, B. (2002). Adolescence in Sub-SaharanAfrica: An image constructed from Africa’s triple in-heritance. In B. B. Brown, R. Larson, & T. S. Sar-sawathi (Eds.), The world’s youth: Adolescence ineight regions of the globe (pp. 61–104). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Roopnarine, J. L. (2004). African American and AfricanCaribbean fathers: Levels, quality, and meaning of in-volvement. M. E. Lamb, (Ed.), The role of the father

ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 12

in child development (4th ed., pp. 58–97). New York:Wiley.

Shweder, R., Goodnow, J., Hatano, G., LeVine, R.,Markus, H., & Miller, P. (1998). The cultural psy-chology of development: One mind, many mentali-ties. In R. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Theoretical models ofhuman development. Vol. 1: Handbook of child psy-chology (pp. 865–937). New York: Wiley.

Sigel, I., & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. (2002). Parental be-liefs as cognitions: The dynamic belief systemsmode. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting(Vol. 3, 2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. (2002). Father ab-sence and child well-being: A critical review. Paperpresented in the Maxwell School, Syracuse Univer-sity, Syracuse, NY, October 25.

Super, C. & Harkness, S. (1997). The cultural structuringof child development. In J. Berry, P. Dasen, & T. S.Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psy-chology. Vol. 2: Basic processes and human develop-ment (pp. 1–39). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. & Cabrera, N. (Eds.). (2002). Hand-book on father involvement: Multidisciplinary per-spectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Taylor, R. L. (Ed.). (1998). Minority families in the UnitedStates: A multicultural perspective (2nd ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tomlinson, J. B. (1999). Globalization and culture.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tulananda, O., & Roopnarine, J. L. (2001). Mothers’ andfathers’ interactions with preschoolers in the home inNorthern Thailand: Relationships to teachers’ assess-ments of children’s social skills. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 14, 676–687.

Whiting, B., & Whiting, J. W. M. (1975). Children of sixcultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilke, J. R., & Ferree, M. M., & Ratcliff, K. S. (1998).Gender and fairness: Marital satisfaction in two-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family,60, 577–594.

United Nations Development Programme. (2001). Humandevelopment report. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

United Nations General Assembly (1989, November).Adoption of a convention on the rights of the child(U.N. Doc. A/Res.44/25). New York: United Nations.


ch01.qxd 5/7/04 1:02 PM Page 13

families in global perspective - pearson canada · families in global perspective. 3 ... number of...

Documents